Instructional Design Interview

Andrew Bachmann
North Carolina State University
EAC 580
Introduction
Instructional design is a constantly changing field. With the rapid advent of new
technologies to deliver instruction and the amount of learning that must take place to keep up
with rapidly changing technology and jobs, instructional design has quite a challenge just to keep
up. Though much is changing, some in the instructional design field feel that there are elements
of instructional design that will not, and perhaps should not change (errill, !""#$ yers,
Watson, % Watson, !""&', while others envision much more radical changes ((ansen, !"")'. *s
errill (!""#' poses in his article addressing changes in instructional design+
The opportunities for learning and instruction are certainly much more varied than a
generation ago. The amount of information available is many times greater than was true for
previous generations. Thanks to the Internet the easy access to this information would have
been inconceivable to our grandparents. ,ut does this mean that the basic mechanisms of
learning have changed- (p. !)&'
To take a closer look at how the field instructional design has changed, what it looks today, and
imagine what it will look like in the future, veteran instructional designer, .ennis Tester, was
interviewed.
Denniss Bac!ground
.ennis is one of four instructional designers that works in his division at *lere (ealth.
.ennis has been working in the instructional design field for over /" years, and originally was an
instructor in a classroom setting. 0urrently, .ennis primarily designs e1learning courses for
employees at *lere (ealth, but he has worked in a variety of capacities designing instruction for
a wide range of audiences.
"istory o# $echnology in Instructional Design
.uring the interview, .ennis was asked to recall his impressions of how technology has
changed the field of instructional design. .ennis recalled that when he originally began in
instructional design, the ne2t big thing was to switch from the face1to1face instruction format to
3(4 recorded video instruction. *t the time the change seemed monumental. The use of video
solved issues with classroom capacity, having enough instructors, and allowed learners to take
the video home or view it at their office.
The ne2t big advancement .ennis recalled with that of the 0.15om. oving instruction
onto 0.6s allowed instructional designers to make the lessons interactive as opposed to the
strictly linear lessons that recorded video provided. This change, too, seemed monumental. The
challenge .ennis noted with 0.6s was that every time an alteration needed to be made to the
instructional program, the company would have to 7re1burn about 8"" 0.6s.9
The initial advantage of moving the instruction online, .ennis noted, was that making
changes was very easily done. The limitation, though, was that initially internet speeds were very
slow and only te2t and a few pictures would be included. :ow, with internet speeds being as fast
as they are, .ennis feels instructional design is 7basically limitless in multimedia that can be
used.9
.ennis6s e2periences with technologies6 impact on instruction very much mirror what ;evin
(<===' describes. 4he states that 7Technology has moved much of the learning away from the
classroom and onto the computer > The e2plosion of technology1based training has been
e2acerbated by the growth of the internet.9 (p.<'. .ennis has had to be very adaptable throughout
his career as instructional designer learning new technologies e2actly how ;evin describes in her
article (<==='.
Advantages and Draw%ac!s o# Instructional $echnology
.ennis made several notes of the advantages that each new technology brings. When
discussing online courses, he said that learners 7can log in at their leisure, and it doesn6t matter
where or when they take it. They can take it in their backyard at midnight. It doesn6t matter.9
These same advantages are mentioned throughout literature on the topic of instructional design
with technology (;evin, <===$ yers, Watson, % Watson, !""&$ .obbs, !"")$ orrison, 5oss,
?emp, % ?alman, !"</'. *nother advantage that can be found in literature is that of self1paced
learning. yers, Watson, and Watson (!""&' note+
In self1paced training the learners proceed through the training individually, at their own rate
of progress...*n advantage of self1paced training is that there is not a need for a central
training location and the training can be delivered to the learners desktop at any time that is
convenient. (p.</)'
.ennis agrees that there is some element of differentiation that comes naturally with self1paced
learning, but that doesn6t mean the instructional designer can forget about the audience when
designing an e1learning course. (e states that one of the first things out of an instructional
designers mouth when starting a new project should be+ 7Tell me about the audience.9
There is also plenty of question within literature as to the presumed additional value of
instruction with technology (.obbs, !"")$ orrison, 5oss, ?emp, % ?alman !"</'. orrison,
5oss, and ?emp (!"</' report that 7research fails to support any advantage for technology over
other delivery modes using comparable instructional strategies9 (p.!!@'. .obbs (!"")' also notes
that 7sometimes a simple written job aid is more effective than a sophisticated course platform or
a new technology will provide9 (p. 8<!'. When asked about any potential disadvantages of
learning with technology, .ennis simply noted that not everyone may have the technology that
the instructional designer would like to use. If an instructional designer puts a course together
that a client doesn6t have the technology or resources to use, then it is effectively useless. This
too is mentioned in literature as ;evin (<===' states, 7it is easy to assume that all learners have
sophisticated robust equipment with enormous hard drives and top1speed internet connections.
This is usually not the case.9 (p. !'. .ennis made no other mention of disadvantages. Ane of the
disadvantages found in literature that .ennis did not mention, is that new technology when used
without the instructional objectives in mind does nothing to improve instruction, and can in fact
be worse (.obbs, !"")'.
&hat the Instructional Design 'rocess (oo!s (i!e $oday
In the interview, .ennis described what the Instructional design process looks like for him
today. (e stated that he uses the *..IB (*nalysis, .esign, .evelop, Implement, Bvaluate'
model for instructional design and he has been since he started in the late seventies. This fits with
*llen6s (!"")' statement that, 7The conceptual phases of systematic trainingCanalyDe, design,
develop, implement, and evaluateChave stood the test of time. Eart of the reason for their
resilience is that they have allowed adaptation and revision.9 (p. @@"'.
.ennis e2plained that when he is assigned a project by the training manager, .ennis gets in
touch with the subject matter e2pert (4B' for the client. .ennis noted that, depending, on this
individuals level of e2perience, they may come with some preconceived idea of what they want,
or no idea of what they need (and sometimes both'. 4ometimes there may be an e2isting class
already that just needs to be adapted to be put online because the client can no longer afford to do
face1to1face instruction. Ather times the 4B has no idea how to teach a process and it becomes
his role to help them develop that. The challenge is working with that individual and using their
e2pertise, while convincing them to accept an appropriate instructional design. .ennis said that
rule number one in instructional design is, 7:ever define the chapter, just train it.9 These
descriptions of interactions with the 4B are very similar to what 4olomonson (!""#' describes
in his article. 4olomonson points out how tricky relationship can be with the 4B and that it is
important to recogniDe each individual (the 4B and the instructional designer' for what they are
skilled at and to work together toward a shared outcome. .ennis also described that this working
with the 4B would include a thorough analysis of the audience and the learning environment. *
key step in the *nalysis process.
In development, .ennis described that he had learned how to use a variety of technology
tools throughout his career. (e is a web designer now, and uses a variety of tools to develop
instructional resources for his courses. 5esources he mentioned using frequently are icrosoft
3isio for diagramming, and *rticulate 4toryline for interactive scenario based tutorials. ;earning
these new skills throughout .ennis6s career falls in line with ;evin6s (<===' description of the
changing role of the instructional developer.
The evaluation stage of the *..IB process is often over1looked (Wang % Wilco2, !"")'.
When asked about his use of evaluation, .ennis stated that he feels it has always been a personal
point of emphasis for him, but more recently it is being emphasiDed by the organiDations he
works with and others he learns about. .ennis pointed out that their has been a shift from just
finishing an instructional course with a cumulative multiple choice test, toward fleshing out
evaluation to include things like observed performance. ore now then ever, evaluators are
going into the workplace to collect data on what the trainees are actually doing with their new
training. .ennis described a checklist of behaviors that are observed being used that is very
similar to what orrison, 5oss, ?emp, % ?alman (!"</' describe in their types of
skillsFbehavior assessments.
$he )uture o# Instructional Design
When .ennis was asked about what he envisions for the future of instructional design, he
was convinced that it was in mobile learning. (e said that many people have mobile devices now
and that this would allow individuals to truly learn anytime and anywhere. (e said he has begun
the process of learning how to design applications for these devices and already works on
making online courses suitable for using these devices. .ennis noted that the design principles
don6t change much, but that one must re1imagine and rebuild the instruction with the device in
and its particular limitations (such as screen siDe and limited interface' in mind. This vision of
the future of instructional design fits fairly well with (ansen6s (!"")' slight change scenario for
envisioning the future of instructional design. In this scenario (ansen imagines that 7.istance
education technologies finally achieve widespread use and transparency.9 and 7the only
significant changes have been in the alteration of the communication channel between the
training professional and the learner.9 (p. 8<<'. (ansen then goes on to imagine other potential
scenarios for instructional design. Ane in which pharmaceuticals are used to alter the efficiency
of the brain, and another in which learning no longer takes effort and is essentially downloaded
into ones brain ((ensen, !"")'. .ennis did not envision significant changes in the role of the
instructional designer despite unpredictable changes in the technology. .ennis said that his
biggest piece of advice for a novice instructional designer was this+ 7The *ddie model is going to
be the key to your success as an instructional designer. Gust follow that model, don6t deviate, and
you6ll be fine.9
Conclusion
In .ennis6s interview two things were quite apparent. Ane is that an instructional designer
has to be prepared to deal with change. In his career, the way that instructional is presented has
changed dramatically several times from face1to1face, to 3(4, to 0.6s, to web1based, and to
mobile devices going forward. These changes all require that the instructional designer rethink
the way that instruction is done. If one doesn6t make the change they will be left behind. *t the
same time, if you change to fast and move on to the ne2t technology, the client may not be able
to benefit from it.
The other apparent lesson from the interview with .ennis is that while the technology and
delivery method evolves, the *..IB model evolves with it. *nalysis, .esign, .evelop,
Implement, and Bvaluate have always been an ideal set of steps throughout .ennis6s long career
in guiding the instructional design process, and nothing yet suggests that these steps won6t
continue to be the ideal steps to take moving forward.
*e#erences
*llen, W. 0. (!"")'. Averview and evolution of the *..IB training system. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, #, @/" 1 @@<.
.obbs, 5ita (!"")'. .evelopment Ehase of 4ystematic Training+ :ew Technology ;ends
*ssistance. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 8"" 1 8</.
(ansen, G. W. (!"")'. Training design+ 4cenarios of the future. Advances in Developing Human
Resources$ #$ @=!
;evin, . (<==='. The 0hanging and Bmerging 5ole of the Instructional .eveloper. 4T0
Eroceedings
errill, . .. (!""#'. Why ,asic Erinciples of Instruction ust ,e Eresent in the ;earning
;andscape, Whatever Horm It Takes, for ;earning to ,e Bffective, Bfficient and Bngaging. G.
3isser and . 3isser13alfrey (eds.', Learners in a Changing Learning Landscape:
Reflections from a Dialogue on New Roles and Expectations. 4pringer 4cience I ,usiness
edia, pp. !)& J !&8
orrison, K. 5., 5oss, 4. ., ?emp, G. B. , % ?alman, (. (!"</'. .esigning effective
instruction+ 4eventh Bdition. (oboken, :G+ Gohn Wiley % 4ons
yers, E.., Watson, ,., % Watson, . (!""&'. Bffective training programs using instructional
systems design and e1learning. Erocess 4afety Erogress, !&(!', pp. </< J </#.
4olomonson, W.;. (!""#'. Towards Hluent Instructional .esign in the 0onte2t of Eeople.
Eerformance Improvement, @& (&', <! 1 <=.
Wang, K. K. % Wilco2, .. (!"")'. Training evaluation+ ?nowing more than is practiced.
Advances in Developing Human Resources$ #$ 8!#